Asymmetric uptake on molecular breast imaging: A manifestation of unilateral breastfeeding.

Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is an adjunctive screening tool that can be helpful in evaluating women with dense breasts or in high-risk patients. We present the case of a 43-year-old female who had markedly asymmetric uptake in one of her breasts on MBI study. Further evaluation with diagnostic mammogram and ultrasound did not demonstrate any suspicious findings in the affected breast. Discussion with the patient and additional clinical history revealed that the patient was exclusively breastfeeding from that side, accounting for the unilateral MBI findings.

Breast Cancer Screening With Automated Breast US and Mammography vs Handheld US and Mammography in Women With Dense Breasts in a Real-World Clinical Setting.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the performance of 2 breast cancer screening approaches, automated breast US (ABUS) with same-day mammography (ABUS/MG) and handheld US (HHUS) with same-day mammography (HHUS/MG), in women with dense breasts to better understand the relative usefulness of ABUS and HHUS in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved, retrospective observational study, we evaluated all ABUS/MG and HHUS/MG screening examinations performed at our institution from May 2013 to September 2021. BI-RADS categories, biopsy pathology results, and diagnostic test characteristics (eg, sensitivity, specificity) were compared between the 2 screening approaches using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: A total of 1120 women with dense breasts were included in this study, with 852 undergoing ABUS/MG and 268 undergoing HHUS/MG. The sensitivities of ABUS/MG and HHUS/MG were 100% (5/5) and 75.0% (3/4), respectively, which was not a statistically significant difference (P = .444). The ABUS/MG approach demonstrated a slightly higher specificity (97.4% [825/847] vs 94.3% [249/264]; P = .028), higher accuracy (97.4% [830/852] vs 94.0% [252/268]; P = .011), and lower biopsy recommendation rate (3.2% [27/852] vs 6.7% [18/268]; P = .019) than the HHUS/MG approach in our patient population. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that ABUS/MG performs comparably with HHUS/MG as a breast cancer screening approach in women with dense breasts in a real-world clinical setting, with the ABUS/MG approach demonstrating a similar sensitivity and slightly higher specificity than the HHUS/MG approach. Additional variables, such as patient experience and physician time, may help determine which imaging approach to employ in specific clinical settings.

Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis in women with dense breasts and additional breast cancer risk factors: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) may improve sensitivity in population screening. However, evidence is currently limited on the performance of DBT in patients at a higher risk of breast cancer. This systematic review compares the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of DBT, digital mammography (DM), and ultrasound, for breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts and additional risk factors. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews via OvidSP were searched to identify literature from 2010 to August 21, 2023. Selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment (using QUADAS-2 and CHEERS) were completed in duplicate. Findings were summarised descriptively and narratively. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies met pre-specified inclusion criteria. In women with breast symptoms or recalled for investigation of screen-detected findings (19 studies), DBT may be more accurate than DM. For example, in symptomatic women, the sensitivity of DBT + DM ranged from 82.8 % to 92.5 % versus 56.8 %-81.3 % for mammography (DM/synthesised images). However, most studies had a high risk of bias due to participant selection. Evidence regarding DBT in women with a personal or family history of breast cancer, for DBT versus ultrasound alone, and cost-effectiveness of DBT was limited. CONCLUSIONS: In women with dense breasts and additional risk factors for breast cancer, evidence is limited about the accuracy of DBT compared to other imaging modalities, particularly in those with personal or family history of breast cancer. Future research in this population should consider head-to-head comparisons of imaging modalities to determine the relative effectiveness of these imaging tests. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42021236470.

Comparison of the effectiveness of contrast-enhanced mammography in detecting malignant lesions in patients with extremely dense breasts compared to the all-densities population.

Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) recombinant images in detecting malignant lesions in patients with extremely dense breasts compared to the all-densities population. Material and methods: 792 patients with 808 breast lesions, in whom the final decision on core-needle biopsy was made based on CEM, and who received the result of histopathological examination, were qualified for a single-centre, retrospective study. Patient electronic records and imaging examinations were reviewed to establish demographics, clinical and imaging findings, and histopathology results. The CEM images were reassessed and assigned to the appropriate American College of Radiology (ACR) density categories. Results: Extremely dense breasts were present in 86 (10.9%) patients. Histopathological examination confirmed the presence of malignant lesions in 52.6% of cases in the entire group of patients and 43% in the group of extremely dense breasts. CEM incorrectly classified the lesion as false negative in 16/425 (3.8%) cases for the whole group, and in 1/37 (2.7%) cases for extremely dense breasts. The sensitivity of CEM for the group of all patients was 96.2%, specificity - 60%, positive predictive values (PPV) - 72.8%, and negative predictive values (NPV) - 93.5%. In the group of patients with extremely dense breasts, the sensitivity of the method was 97.3%, specificity - 59.2%, PPV - 64.3%, and NPV - 96.7%. Conclusions: CEM is characterised by high sensitivity and NPV in detecting malignant lesions regardless of the type of breast density. In patients with extremely dense breasts, CEM could serve as a complementary or additional examination in the absence or low availability of MRI.

Abbreviated Breast MRI for Supplemental Screening in Patients With Dense Breasts: Comparison of Baseline Versus Subsequent-Round Examinations.

BACKGROUND. Abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) achieves a higher cancer detection rate (CDR) than digital breast tomosynthesis when applied for baseline (i.e., first-round) supplemental screening of individuals with dense breasts. Limited literature has evaluated subsequent (i.e., sequential) AB-MRI screening rounds. OBJECTIVE. This study aimed to compare outcomes between baseline and subsequent rounds of screening AB-MRI in individuals with dense breasts who otherwise had an average risk for breast cancer. METHODS. This retrospective study included patients with dense breasts who otherwise had an average risk for breast cancer and underwent AB-MRI for supplemental screening between December 20, 2016, and May 10, 2023. The clinical interpretations and results of recommended biopsies for AB-MRI examinations were extracted from the EMR. Baseline and subsequent-round AB-MRI examinations were compared. RESULTS. The final sample included 2585 AB-MRI examinations (2007 baseline and 578 subsequent-round examinations) performed for supplemental screening of 2007 women (mean age, 57.1 years old) with dense breasts. Of 2007 baseline examinations, 1658 (82.6%) were assessed as BI-RADS category 1 or 2, 171 (8.5%) as BI-RADS category 3, and 178 (8.9%) as BI-RADS category 4 or 5. Of 578 subsequent-round examinations, 533 (92.2%) were assessed as BI-RADS category 1 or 2, 20 (3.5%) as BI-RADS category 3, and 25 (4.3%) as BI-RADS category 4 or 5 (p < .001). The abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) was 17.4% (349/2007) for baseline examinations versus 7.8% (45/578) for subsequent-round examinations (p < .001). For baseline examinations, PPV2 was 21.3% (38/178), PPV3 was 26.6% (38/143), and the CDR was 18.9 cancers per 1000 examinations (38/2007). For subsequent-round examinations, PPV2 was 28.0% (7/25) (p = .45), PPV3 was 29.2% (7/24) (p = .81), and the CDR was 12.1 cancers per 1000 examinations (7/578) (p = .37). All 45 cancers diagnosed by baseline or subsequent-round AB-MRI were stage 0 or 1. Seven cancers diagnosed by subsequent-round AB-MRI had a mean interval of 872 ± 373 (SD) days since prior AB-MRI and node-negative status at surgical axillary evaluation; six had an invasive component, all measuring 1.2 cm or less. CONCLUSION. Subsequent rounds of AB-MRI screening of individuals with dense breasts had lower AIR than baseline examinations while maintaining a high CDR. All cancers detected by subsequent-round examinations were early-stage node-negative cancers. CLINICAL IMPACT. The findings support sequential AB-MRI for supplemental screening in individuals with dense breasts. Further investigations are warranted to optimize the screening interval.

Breast Density: Where Are We Now?

Breast density refers to the amount of fibroglandular tissue relative to fat on mammography and is determined either qualitatively through visual assessment or quantitatively. It is a heritable and dynamic trait associated with age, race/ethnicity, body mass index, and hormonal factors. Increased breast density has important clinical implications including the potential to mask malignancy and as an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer. Breast density has been incorporated into breast cancer risk models. Given the impact of dense breasts on the interpretation of mammography, supplemental screening may be indicated.

Clinical significance of serum synaptophysin-like 1 protein levels in breast cancer.

Background: Mammography, used for breast cancer (BC) screening, has limitations such as decreased sensitivity in dense breasts. Currently used tumor markers are insufficient in diagnosing breast cancer. In this study, we aimed to investigate the relationship between serum levels of synaptophysin-like protein 1 (SYPL1) and BC and compare SYPL1 with other blood tumor markers. Methods: The study group consisted of 80 female patients with a histopathological diagnosis of invasive BC who received no radiotherapy/chemotherapy. The control group was 72 women with no previous history of breast disease and evaluated as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS 1-2) on imaging. Serum SYPL1, cancer antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3), and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) were measured in both groups.

Automated rating of background parenchymal enhancement in MRI of extremely dense breasts without compromising the association with breast cancer in the DENSE trial.

OBJECTIVES: Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) as rated by radiologists is subject to inter- and intrareader variability. We aim to automate BPE category from DCE-MRI. METHODS: This study represents a secondary analysis of the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening trial. 4553 women with extremely dense breasts who received supplemental breast MRI screening in eight hospitals were included. Minimal, mild, moderate and marked BPE rated by radiologists were used as reference. Fifteen quantitative MRI features of the fibroglandular tissue were extracted to predict BPE using Random Forest, Naïve Bayes, and KNN classifiers. Majority voting was used to combine the predictions. Internal-external validation was used for training and validation. The inverse-variance weighted mean accuracy was used to express mean performance across the eight hospitals. Cox regression was used to verify non inferiority of the association between automated rating and breast cancer occurrence compared to the association for manual rating. RESULTS: The accuracy of majority voting ranged between 0.56 and 0.84 across the eight hospitals. The weighted mean prediction accuracy for the four BPE categories was 0.76. The hazard ratio (HR) of BPE for breast cancer occurrence was comparable between automated rating and manual rating (HR = 2.12 versus HR = 1.97, P = 0.65 for mild/moderate/marked BPE relative to minimal BPE). CONCLUSION: It is feasible to rate BPE automatically in DCE-MRI of women with extremely dense breasts without compromising the underlying association between BPE and breast cancer occurrence. The accuracy for minimal BPE is superior to that for other BPE categories.

Implementing supplementary breast cancer screening in women with dense breasts: Insights from European radiographers and radiologists.

INTRODUCTION: In response to the critical need for enhancing breast cancer screening for women with dense breasts, this study explored the understanding of challenges and requirements for implementing supplementary breast cancer screening for such women among clinical radiographers and radiologists in Europe. METHOD: Fourteen (14) semi-structured online interviews were conducted with European clinical radiologists (n = 5) and radiographers (n = 9) specializing in breast cancer screening from 8 different countries: Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom. The interview schedule comprised questions regarding professional background and demographics and 13 key questions divided into six subgroups, namely Supplementary Imaging, Training, Resources and Guidelines, Challenges, Implementing supplementary screening and Women's Perspective. Data analysis followed the six phases of reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Six significant themes emerged from the data analysis: Understanding and experiences of supplementary imaging for women with dense breasts; Challenges and requirements related to training among clinical radiographers and radiologists; Awareness among radiographers and radiologists of guidelines on imaging women with dense breasts; Challenges to implement supplementary screening; Predictors of Implementing Supplementary screening; Views of radiologists and radiographers on women's perception towards supplementary screening. CONCLUSION: The interviews with radiographers and radiologists provided valuable insights into the challenges and potential strategies for implementing supplementary breast cancer screening. These challenges included patient and staff related challenges. Implementing multifaceted solutions such as Artificial Intelligence integration, specialized training and resource investment can address these challenges and promote the successful implementation of supplementary screening. Further research and collaboration are needed to refine and implement these strategies effectively. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study highlights the urgent need for specialized training programs and dedicated resources to enhance supplementary breast cancer screening for women with dense breasts in Europe. These resources include advanced imaging technologies, such as MRI or ultrasound, and specialized software for image analysis. Moreover, further research is imperative to refine screening protocols and evaluate their efficacy and cost-effectiveness, based on the findings of this study.

Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography for suspicious findings in dense breasts: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Contrast-enhanced spectral imaging (CEM) is a new mammography technique, but its diagnostic value in dense breasts is still inconclusive. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of CEM for suspicious findings in dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically until August 6, 2023. Prospective and retrospective studies were included to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM for suspicious findings in dense breasts. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to evaluate the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. STATA V.16.0 and Review Manager V.5.3 were used to meta-analyze the included studies. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies (827 patients, 958 lesions) were included. These 10 studies reported the diagnostic performance of CEM for the workup of suspicious lesions in patients with dense breasts. The summary sensitivity and summary specificity were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.97) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70-0.89), respectively. Enhanced lesions, circumscribed margins, and malignancy were statistically correlated. The relative malignancy OR value of the enhanced lesions was 28.11 (95% CI, 6.84-115.48). The relative malignancy OR value of circumscribed margins was 0.17 (95% CI, 0.07-0.45). CONCLUSION: CEM has high diagnostic performance in the workup of suspicious findings in dense breasts, and when lesions are enhanced and have irregular margins, they are often malignant.

High-resolution diffusion-weighted MRI plus mammography for detecting clinically occult breast cancers in women with dense breasts.

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of mammography, high-resolution DW-MRI, DCE-MRI, and their combinations in detecting clinically occult breast cancer in women with dense breasts. METHOD: 544 breasts from 281 consecutive asymptomatic women with dense breasts were retrospectively identified. They underwent breast MRI for preoperative evaluation of breast cancers (n = 214) or as supplemental screening (n = 67) including DCE-MRI and DW-MRI (b values, 0 and 1000 sec/mm2; in-plane resolution, 1.1 × 1.1 mm2 and 1.3 × 1.3 mm2; section thickness, 3 mm), in addition to mammography. Three readers independently reviewed each examination on a per-breast basis. Histopathology and at least two year of imaging follow-up served as the gold standard. The sensitivities and specificities of different imaging modalities were compared using McNemar test. RESULTS: 230 of 544 breasts (42 %) had malignant lesions. The sensitivity of DW-MRI was higher than that of mammography (77.0 % vs 57.9 %; adjusted p < 0.001), but lower than that of DCE-MRI (84.8 %; adjusted p = 0.014). The specificity of DW-MRI was comparable to those of mammography (98.1 % vs 99.1 %; adjusted p > 0.999) and DCE-MRI (97.1 %; adjusted p > 0.999). DW-MRI plus mammography had a comparable sensitivity and specificity to those of DCE-MRI plus mammography (88.6 % vs 90.9 % and 97.1 % vs 96.2 %; adjusted p > 0.999 for both). CONCLUSIONS: High-resolution DW-MRI had a sensitivity higher than mammography and lower than DCE-MRI. Nevertheless, DW-MRI plus mammography showed a comparable sensitivity and specificity to DCE-MRI plus mammography for detecting clinically occult cancers in women with dense breasts.

Factors Associated With Breast Cancer Screening Behaviors Among Women With Dense Breasts.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify patient factors associated with patient-reported screening behaviors in women with dense breasts. METHODS: An IRB-approved survey study of women with dense breasts presenting for annual screening mammography at an outpatient imaging center was previously conducted from March 2017 to February 2018. The survey included questions regarding mammographic screening frequency and recent participation in supplemental screening. These survey data were combined post hoc with clinical and demographic data and socioeconomic data imputed from census data. Logistic regression was used to identify patient factors associated with reported screening behaviors. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 508 women (median age, 59.0 years; range, 31.0-86.0 years) with dense breasts. Multivariable analysis demonstrated an independent association of undergoing mammographic screening annually with a history of discussing breast density with a doctor (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.60; P = 0.019). Undergoing supplemental screening in the previous three years was independently associated with younger age (AOR, 1.59; P = 0.004), strong family history of breast cancer (AOR, 3.84; P = 0.027), higher perceived personal risk for breast cancer (AOR, 3.47; P = 0.004), and increased concern about radiation associated with screening examinations (AOR, 3.31; P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Women with dense breasts who had discussed breast density with a doctor were more likely to report undergoing annual screening mammography, while younger women and women with a strong family history of breast cancer, higher perceived personal risk for breast cancer, or greater concern about radiation were more likely to report recently undergoing supplemental screening.

Feasibility Study and Clinical Impact of Incorporating Breast Tissue Density in High-Risk Breast Cancer Screening Assessment.

Breast tissue density (BTD) is known to increase the risk of breast cancer but is not routinely used in the risk assessment of the population-based High-Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program (HROBSP). This prospective, IRB-approved study assessed the feasibility and impact of incorporating breast tissue density (BTD) into the risk assessment of women referred to HROBSP who were not genetic mutation carriers. All consecutive women aged 40-69 years who met criteria for HROBSP assessment and referred to Genetics from 1 December 2020 to 31 July 2021 had their lifetime risk calculated with and without BTD using Tyrer-Cuzick model version 8 (IBISv8) to gauge overall impact. McNemar's test was performed to compare eligibility with and without density. 140 women were referred, and 1 was excluded (BRCA gene mutation carrier and automatically eligible). Eight of 139 (5.8%) never had a mammogram, while 17/131 (13%) did not have BTD reported on their mammogram and required radiologist review. Of 131 patients, 22 (16.8%) were clinically impacted by incorporation of BTD: 9/131 (6.9%) became eligible for HROBSP, while 13/131 (9.9%) became ineligible (p = 0.394). It was feasible for the Genetics clinic to incorporate BTD for better risk stratification of eligible women. This did not significantly impact the number of eligible women while optimizing the use of high-risk supplemental MRI screening.

Tomosynthesis with synthesised two-dimensional mammography yields higher cancer detection compared to digital mammography alone, also in dense breasts and in younger women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis focuses on breast cancer screening performance outcomes stratified into breast density, age, and reading procedure using 'digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with synthesised two-dimensional mammography (s2D)' compared to 'digital mammography (DM) alone'. METHODS: Studies comparing 'DBT with s2D' and 'DM' were searched in PubMed and Cochrane library. Pooled risk ratios (RR) using fixed or random effects models (F-/REM) for cancer detection rates (CDR), recall rates, interval cancer rates (ICR), biopsy rates, and positive predictive values (PPV) 1-3 were calculated. Outcomes were stratified into breast density (non-dense and dense), age (<60, ≥60), and reading procedure (double-/non-double reading). Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. RESULTS: We identified 13 studies. Using DBT plus s2D compared to DM alone resulted in a higher increase in CDR for dense ([number of studies included, FEM RR, 95% confidence interval (CI)]; n = 3, 1.60, 1.16-2.22) versus non-dense breasts (n = 3, 1.32, 1.08-1.61). Recall rates were lower in dense (n = 2, 0.84, 0.75-0.94), but much lower for non-dense breasts (n = 2, 0.65, 0.59-0.72). Age stratification resulted in small differences in CDR (<60: n = 2, 1.64, 1.18-2.29 / ≥60: n = 2, 1.56, 1.19-2.05). After screening with DBT plus s2D compared to DM alone the risk of being recalled was less in non-double (n = 3, 0.57, 0.54-0.60) than in double reading (n = 5, 0.95, 0.81-1.11) and the risk of cancer detection was higher in double reading (n = 6, 1.53, 1.40-1.67) than in non-double reading (n = 4, 1.17, 1.02-1.33). CONCLUSION: Since only few studies are available for meta-analyses statistical significance strongly depends on single study results. Taking this into account, the most important results concern the increase of CDR in women with dense breasts, the increased CDR in double reading, and the lower recall rates particularly with non-double reading.

Association of breast cancer risk, density, and stiffness: global tissue stiffness on breast MR elastography (MRE).

PURPOSE: Quantify in vivo biomechanical tissue properties in various breast densities and in average risk and high-risk women using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)/MRE and examine the association between breast biomechanical properties and cancer risk based on patient demographics and clinical data. METHODS: Patients with average risk or high-risk of breast cancer underwent 3.0 T breast MR imaging and elastography. Breast parenchymal enhancement (BPE), density (from most recent mammogram), stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity were recorded. Within each breast density group (non-dense versus dense), stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity were compared across risk groups (average versus high). Separately for stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity, a multivariable logistic regression model was used to evaluate whether the MRE parameter predicted risk status after controlling for clinical factors. RESULTS: 50 average risk and 86 high-risk patients were included. Risk groups were similar in age, density, and menopausal status. Among patients with dense breasts, mean stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity were significantly higher in high-risk patients (N = 55) compared to average risk patients (N = 34; all p < 0.001). Stiffness remained a significant predictor of risk status (OR = 4.26, 95% CI [1.96, 9.25]) even after controlling for breast density, BPE, age, and menopausal status. Similar results were seen for elasticity and viscosity. CONCLUSION: A structurally based, quantitative biomarker of tissue stiffness obtained from MRE is associated with differences in breast cancer risk in dense breasts. Tissue stiffness could provide a novel prognostic marker to help identify high-risk women with dense breasts who would benefit from increased surveillance and/or risk reduction measures.

Comparison of Cancers Detected by Screening Breast Ultrasound and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

PURPOSE: Review of outcomes of screening patients imaged with both digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and screening ultrasound (US) to compare the cancer detection rates and characteristics of cancers detected by the imaging modalities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed a total of 24,787 screening US exams performed in the time period of January 2013 through December 2017. These exams were in patients with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue. In this population, 21,220 (86%) had DBT screening mammography. These cases were further reviewed to identify any pathology-proven malignancy detected with US and/or DBT. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 115 breast cancers in patients having screening US and DBT. Of the 115 cancers, 100 were invasive cancers and 15 were ductal carcinoma in situ: 64/115 were seen on DBT, 9 of which were seen only on DBT, and 106 were seen on US, with 51 seen only on US. The cancer detection rate of DBT only was 0.4/1000 (9/21,220) and 3.0/1000 (64/21,220) for those detected on DBT whether with or without additional US, with detection on US only having an incremental cancer detection rate of 2.4/1000 (51/21,220) above DBT detected malignancies. Differences in DBT-detected lesions and US only lesions when comparing median lesion size, lesion type, tumor type (invasive vs noninvasive) and tumor stage were statistically significant (p = 0.0045, p = 0.0113, p = 0.0003, and p = 0.0153, respectively). CONCLUSION: In review of the outcomes of a screening US program, we found a similar number of breast cancers were detected by DBT and US, and US alone (47.8% vs 44.3%, respectively). Ninety-six percent of the cancers detected by US alone were invasive; 89% of those seen on both modalities were invasive, while most of the breast cancers seen on DBT only were in situ carcinoma. Statistically significant differences between DBT and US, and US alone were found for many lesion characteristics including lesion size, type, tumor size, and tumor stage.

BI-RADS 3 on dense breast screening ultrasound after digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Compare the BI-RADS 3 rate and follow-up of dense breast ultrasound (US) screening following digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). METHODS: IRB-approved, HIPAA compliant retrospective search was performed of databases at two tertiary breast centers and an office practice for BI-RADS 3 screening US examinations performed 10/1/14-9/30/16. Prior DM versus DBT, downgrade and upgrade rate, and timing and pathology results were recorded. Differences were compared using the two-sample proportions test. RESULTS: 3183 screening US examinations were performed, 1434/3183 (45.1%) after DM and 1668/3183 (52%) after DBT (2.5% (81/3183) no prior mammogram available). 13.9% (199/1434) had BI-RADS 3 results after DM and 10.6% (177/1668) after DBT (p < 0.01). Median imaging follow-up after DM was 12 months (IQR 6, 24) versus 18 after DBT (IQR 11, 25), p = 0.02. 19.5% (73/375) of patients were lost to follow-up (19.2% (38/198) after DM (68.4% (26/38) no follow-up after initial exam) versus 19.8% (35/177) after DBT (54.3% (19/35) no follow-up after initial exam). 1.3% (5/375) of patients elected biopsy (1.5% (3/198) after DM and 1.1% (2/177) after DBT). 75.2% (282/375) of patients were downgraded (75.3% (149/198) after DM and 75.1% (133/177) after DBT). 2.5% (5/198) were upgraded after DM and 0.6% (1/177) after DBT. Median time to upgrade was 6 months after both DM and DBT. 0.3% (1/375) of patients with BI-RADS 3 results had cancer on follow-up. CONCLUSION: Patients with prior DBT had a lower risk of encountering BI-RADS 3 findings on screening ultrasound. BI-RADS 3 findings on screening ultrasound had an extremely low rate of being cancer.

Outcomes of Return to Routine Screening for BI-RADS 3 Lesions Detected at Supplemental Automated Whole-Breast Ultrasound in Women With Dense Breasts: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND. Supplemental screening breast ultrasound (US) detects additional cancers in women with dense breasts but identifies many BI-RADS 3 lesions that result in short-term follow-up and biopsies. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes in patients recommended for return to routine screening for lesions assessed as BI-RADS 3 on supplemental automated whole-breast US. METHODS. This prospective study invited patients with BI-RADS 1 or 2 on screening mammography and breast density C or D to undergo supplemental automated breast US (ABUS). ABUS was interpreted as BI-RADS 1, 2, 3, or 0. Return to routine screening was recommended for ABUS BI-RADS 1, 2, or 3. ABUS BI-RADS 0 lesions underwent targeted handheld US. Remaining patients were followed for 2 years. Malignancy rates were compared using Fisher exact tests. RESULTS. A total of 2257 women (mean age, 58.0 ± 11.2 [SD] years) were included. Supplemental ABUS was scored as BI-RADS 1 in 1186 (52.5%) women, BI-RADS 2 in 591 (26.2%), BI-RADS 3 in 395 (17.5%), and BI-RADS 0 in 85 (3.8%). A total of 394 patients with ABUS BI-RADS 3 had 2-year follow-up, during which no cancer (0%; 95% CI, 0.0-0.9%) was diagnosed in the quadrant of the lesion. Among patients with 2-year follow-up, breast cancer was diagnosed in 4/1117 (0.4%) with ABUS BI-RADS 1, 2/556 (0.4%) with ABUS BI-RADS 2, and 2/394 (0.5%) with ABUS BI-RADS 3 (cancer in other quadrant than the lesion). Malignancy rates were not different between ABUS BI-RADS 1, 2, and 3 (p = .28). The ABUS recall rate was 3.8% (85/2257; 95% CI, 3.6-4.0%). If short-term follow-up had been recommended for ABUS BI-RADS 3, the ABUS recall rate would have been 21.3% (480/2257, 95% CI 19.6-23.0%). The biopsy rate was 0.5% (12/2257; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9%); the positive biopsy rate was 58.3% (7/12). One of seven cancers diagnosed by initial supplemental ABUS and none of eight cancers diagnosed during subsequent follow-up were node-positive cancer. CONCLUSION. Return to routine screening for ABUS BI-RADS 3 lesions results in a substantial decrease in recall rate and is unlikely to result in an adverse outcome. CLINICAL IMPACT. This prospective study supports a recommendation for routine annual follow-up for BI-RADS 3 lesions at supplemental ABUS. TRIAL REGISTRATION. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02650778.

Patient Characteristics Associated With Patient-Reported Deterrents to Adjunct Breast Cancer Screening of Patients With Dense Breasts.

BACKGROUND. The success of adjunct breast cancer screening of women with dense breasts can be enhanced by identifying and addressing patient concerns regarding adjunct screening modalities. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to identify patient characteristics associated with patient-reported concerns about adjunct breast cancer screening to facilitate the development of a more effective screening model for women with dense breasts. METHODS. Patients with dense breasts completed surveys between March 2017 and February 2018 regarding factors that might deter them from adjunct screening and about which of three hypothetical screening examinations they might prefer. Additional patient data were extracted from medical records, and socioeconomic data were imputed from federal census data. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify associations between patient characteristics and patient attitudes toward adjunct screening. RESULTS. Surveys were completed by 508 women (median age, 59.0 years) with dense breasts. Lower confidence in the sensitivity of mammography of dense breasts was independently associated with lesser concern about adjunct screening examination time (1 divided by adjusted odds ratio [1/AOR], 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.89]), additional imaging that could result (1/AOR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.31-0.85]), and greater preference for a more sensitive hypothetical screening examination (1/AOR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.20-2.86]). Concern about examination cost, the most commonly cited deterrent to adjunct screening (66.9%), was independently associated with younger age (1/AOR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.01-2.08]) but not with imputed socioeconomic variables or other tested variables. Younger age was also associated with lesser concern about pain (1/AOR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48-0.99]), additional imaging that could result (1/AOR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.31-0.76]), and IV contrast administration (1/AOR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.37-0.83]). CONCLUSION. Younger age and lower confidence in the sensitivity of mammography among women with dense breasts are independently associated with lesser patient concern about common deterrents to adjunct breast cancer screening. Younger age is independently associated with greater concern about the cost of undergoing adjunct breast cancer screening. CLINICAL IMPACT. Concerns about adjunct screening may be reduced by educating patients about the lower sensitivity of mammography of dense breasts and by finding ways to address or mitigate the financial and daily-life impact of adjunct screening, especially for younger patients.

Diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced breast MRI versus X-ray mammography in women with different degrees of breast density.

BACKGROUND: Detection of breast cancer in women with high breast densities is a clinical challenge. PURPOSE: To study the influence of different degrees of breast density on the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (CE-BMRI) versus X-ray mammography (XRM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed an additional analysis of two large Phase III clinical trials (G1; G2) which included women with histologically proven breast cancers, called "index cancers." Additional cancers were detected during image reading. We compared the sensitivity of CE-BMRI and XRM in women with different breast densities (ACR A→D; Version 5). For each study, six blinded readers evaluated the images. Results are given as the "Median Reader." RESULTS: A total of 774 patients were included, 169 had additional cancers. While sensitivity of CE-BMRI for detecting all index cancers was independent of breast density (ACR A→D) (G1: 83%→83%; G2: 91%→91%) the sensitivity of XRM declined (ACR A→D) (G1: 79%→62%; G2: 82%→64%). Thus, the sensitivity difference between both imaging modalities in ACR A breasts of 3% (G1) and 9% (G2) increased to 21% (G1) and 26% (G2) in ACR D breasts. Sensitivity of CE-BMRI for detecting at least one additional cancer increased with increasing breast density (ACR A→D) (G1: 50%→73%, G2: 57%→81%). XRM's sensitivity decreased (G1: 34%→20%) or remained stable (G2: 24%→25%). CONCLUSION: CE-BMRI showed significantly higher sensitivity compared to XRM.